I was once a member of a "terrorist" group, show no mercy on civilian terrorists

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
In 1946, before the establishment of the state of Israel, I served in an
underground unit (PalMach) of the Jewish community. We were fighting the
British, who ruled over Palestine in those days. The Britons used radars to
guide their navy to intercept boats full of Jewish refugees who were trying to
escape Nazi-ravaged Europe on their way to their new homeland.

One evening, we attacked a radar station near Haifa. A girl and I, in civilian
clothes and looking as if we were on a date, casually walked up to the radar
station's fence at the same time half a dozen others did. We cut the fence and
placed a bomb. It exploded, but the British shot our leader in the head and
we retreated. We disappeared into the crowd milling around in an adjacent
street. All the British could do was either indiscriminately machine gun the
crowd or wait until their intelligence services identified and located us, two
nearly impossible tasks. But if the British had caught us, we understood that
we could have been hung or sent to a detention camp for the duration of the
conflict.

What the USA faces today are a bunch of freelancers and self-appointed
warriors whose leaders hide in caves or remote villages. Civilian clothes, as
my experience highlights, greatly benefit the attacker, an advantage we as a
country must deal with by almost any means necessary, or our homeland
protection will come to naught.

In fact, many of the indignities we must contend with these days when we
travel by air or enter numerous public buildings are a direct result of the threat
of terrorists hiding behind civilian clothing. We would not have to show photo
IDs or be randomly searched if they abided by long-established and widely
observed rules of warfare. In other words, if they fought us like upstanding
soldiers.

The British had every right to throw the book at me then, just as the United
States today has the same right to deal forcefully with terrorists who
masquerade as civilians, such as potential "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla and
other al-Qaeda operatives. Legally, there's a big difference between an enemy
wearing a soldier's uniform representing his country and a terrorist in civilian's
clothing. The soldier, under the Geneva Convention, has certain rights. But a
terrorist - foreign or American born - who tries to harm innocent people
has next to none, in my mind.

The U.S. Justice Department argued this very point in a brief to an appeals
court about enemy combatants. U.S. officials said these prisoners have no
right to a lawyer and can be held indefinitely and that civilian courts cannot
intervene. Similar authority will likely be used against Padilla, also declared an
enemy combatant.

Or take Richard Reid, the would-be shoe bomber. The only way to deter this
kind of assault (worse than mine, because he attacked civilians, not as
unavoidable collateral damage, but as his sole target) is to severely punish
such terrorists, something the Justice Department has attempted to do with
Reid. We are also quite justified in monitoring his conversations with his
lawyer for security reasons, to ensure that the lawyer will not be used to
transmit messages to other terrorists ready to strike. Moreover, lawyers
should be chosen from a list of those cleared to see some classified
information.

Lawyers, including Reid's public defenders, draw numerous fine distinctions:
among unlawful combatants, prisoners of war and visa over-stayers; between
airplanes and "mass transportation vehicles." But my concerns are much more
basic. For Reid (and for his ilk), we need to establish the fundamental facts
that he is the guy who tried to set off the bomb on that flight - two witnesses
will do - and that he is not insane. (That he planned the attack for months is
proof positive.)

As I see it, under no circumstance should we endanger our national security,
whether our agents or foreign sources, to accommodate some legalistic notion
of a supposedly fair trial. When terrorists attack as civilians and seek to kill
civilians, they put themselves far outside the protection of the law - national
and international.

What about U.S. citizens such as Padilla and John Walker Lindh? Lawyers
say they are entitled to extra rights because of their citizenship. In my book,
they are worse than Reid. It is bad enough for someone who is not one of us
to assault America in the name of some misbegotten cause. It is far worse for
an American to raise his arm against his fellow citizens.

The Constitution correctly brands such people as traitors. Let the lawyers
fight it out as to what exact evidence is needed to declare someone a traitor.
But ethically, we should call them what they are: a cut or two - or much
more - below foreigners who terrorize us.

The judge in Lindh's trial accurately rejected his lawyer's attempts to have all
of the charges against him dropped on constitutional grounds, as well as his
attempt to move to another venue. The judge's ruling cleared the way for
federal authorities to proceed with their prosecution of Lindh. An agreement
was also reached on the use of classified documents.

I am writing here about those suspects caught red-handed.

We must draw the line when we merely suspect that someone is the enemy,
but there is no direct evidence that he or she acted against us. Such was the
case with Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos nuclear scientist who was suspected,
but never convicted, of spying for China. Here, we have to be careful not to
open the floodgates to massive accusations or indictments of foreigners or
Americans.

But as for the likes of Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla,
throw the book at them. Otherwise, how will we deter the terrorists
masquerading as innocent civilians?

"What about you?" one may ask.

I still believe that my cause was just --- but not the way I was fighting for it.

JWR contributor Amitai Etzioni, of George Washington University, is the author of, among others, The Limits of Privacy. Comment by clicking here.

03/31/02: Scandals will end when penalties fit crimes 02/03/02: A former White House staffer's plea to Congress: A presidency needs privacy 01/03/02: One nation, after all 12/27/01: Where children must write their PARENTS notes12/20/01: American extremists12/13/01: Homeland defense is best option for volunteerism11/11/01: Can we force democracy on the Afghans?11/08/01: How not to win the war10/01/01: Problems with the new antiterrorist agenda is not that it is too grand, but that it is not grand enough09/21/01: Either U.S. forces should strike back hard or we'll lose our freedoms09/05/01: Communities, not the president, must enact morality08/23/01: Economists fail as forecasters 08/09/01: Live from Washington it's …. "Everyone's a Criminal"07/27/01: Condit case illustrates the need to rein in fast-talking lawyers playing verbal acrobatics with the truth08/01/01: Shouting 'Big Brother' in a crowded society